No Right to Regularization in Scheme or Project-Based Jobs

In the realm of public employment in India, many workers are hired on a temporary basis for specific government schemes or projects. A common question arises: Temporary appointment for a scheme or project is co terminus with the said scheme and Person so working has no right to be regularised in the regular service. Is this true? The answer, backed by consistent judicial precedents, is generally yes. Such appointments are designed to be short-term, ending automatically when the scheme or project concludes, without conferring any vested right to permanent absorption.

This blog post delves into the legal principles governing these appointments, drawing from Supreme Court and High Court judgments. We'll explore why long service doesn't guarantee regularization, key exceptions, and practical recommendations. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.

Main Legal Finding

Courts in India have repeatedly held that a temporary appointment made specifically for a scheme or project, which is co-terminus with that scheme or project, does not confer a legal right to regularization in permanent service. These roles are inherently temporary, and employment terminates automatically upon the scheme's end, absent any statutory or contractual provisions to the contrary. 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1151

For instance, the Supreme Court has clarified: The fact that the Scheme had been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularization. 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1151

Key Judicial Principles

Here are the core takeaways from landmark rulings:

• Appointments made solely for a specific scheme or project are temporary and end with the scheme's or project's completion. 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1151
• Long duration of service under a scheme or project does not automatically translate into a right for regularization or permanent employment. 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1151 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 23
• Courts consistently rule that persons appointed temporarily against schemes or projects lack a vested right to regularization, especially when co-terminus with the scheme. 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1151 1995 0 Supreme(Raj) 185 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 966
• Regularization cannot be claimed merely on long service or continued employment without following proper appointment rules. 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1151

These principles ensure that public employment adheres to constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 16, preventing backdoor entries.

Detailed Analysis: Why Scheme-Based Jobs Are Temporary

Inherent Temporariness of Project Appointments

Judgments emphasize that scheme or project roles are not meant for permanence. In one case: Services of the project based employees who are appointed or employed against any particular project, come to an end immediately on completion of the said project unless they are absorbed in any project or scheme by the concerned department. 1995 0 Supreme(Raj) 185

This is echoed in other sources, such as: If the temporary or ad-hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of the persons employed under the Project or Scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the Project or the Scheme. 2024 0 Supreme(UK) 104 2020 0 Supreme(J&K) 290

Even extensions of schemes don't change this: Appointment against some scheme or project – Essentially temporary and ad hoc – Scheme or project may be extended from time to time and employees may be continued for decades – That will not make the posts or service permanent – Employees cannot seek regularization. 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 23

Long Service Doesn't Create Rights

A frequent argument—years of service entitles one to permanence—has been rejected. Where a person was appointed on a purely adhoc basis in a temporary post on year to year basis he could not be directed to be regularised though employment continued for a long time. 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 966

Similarly, in a TEQIP project case, the court held: The court found that the petitioner's employment was co-terminus with the TEQIP project, which was set to end, and thus, the petitioner could not claim continuation of service beyond the project's duration. 2024 0 Supreme(UK) 104

Public employment is governed by statutory rules, with no fundamental right to it. Temporary employees can only challenge discrimination or rule violations, not demand regularization. 2022 0 Supreme(HP) 469

Regularization Defined and Limited

Regularization means formalizing irregular appointments per rules, not rewarding long temporary service. Regularisation in service law connotes official formalization of an appointment which was made on a temporary or ad hoc or stop-gap or casual basis or the like in deviation from the normal rules or applicable norms of appointment. 2004 0 Supreme(Raj) 1789

Even court interim orders don't create absorption rights: Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service. 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1151

Insights from Additional Cases

High Courts reinforce this nationwide:

• In a Mission Poorna Shakti case: The precedent law as laid down in various Apex Court judgments is very clear that if a contract is co-terminus with the Project or Scheme, and if such Project or Scheme comes to an end, then no right of such contractual employee could be protected. 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 2326
• Under NULM/SJSRY schemes: Temporary or ad hoc engagement under a specific scheme does not entitle employees to seek permanency or continuation of service under a new scheme. 2017 0 Supreme(All) 1564
• Temporary faculty in RSETIs: Long ad hoc service under extended schemes doesn't justify permanency. 2020 0 Supreme(J&K) 290
• Casual employees in Puducherry: No regularization based on government orders without rule compliance, citing Uma Devi. 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1912

These cases show uniformity: project ends, service ends.

Exceptions and Limitations

While the rule is strict, limited scenarios may allow consideration:

• Specific government schemes or policies for one-time regularization, if criteria are met (but not a vested right). 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 23
• Appointments to sanctioned regular posts (not scheme-tied). 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1151
• Sympathetic absorption if posts remain necessary, per policy (e.g., one Casualty Manager case recommended policy review after 6+ years). 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 384

However, courts stress: No automatic entitlement.

D.Noble Raj vs Central Administrative Tribunal

REGIONAL DIRECTOR NATION ANR vs PRAVEEN KUMAR VYAS AND ANR

Practical Recommendations

• For Employees: Understand your appointment letter—it's typically explicit about co-terminousness. Don't rely on service length; seek clarity upfront.
• For Employers: Document temporary nature clearly to avoid disputes. Follow recruitment rules for any regularization.
• General Advice: Prolonged temporary service might warrant compassionate consideration, but litigate only on strong grounds like arbitrariness.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Temporary scheme or project appointments in India are generally co-terminus, with no automatic regularization right, regardless of duration. This upholds recruitment fairness and fiscal discipline. Key takeaways:

1. Service ends with scheme/project. 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1151
2. Longevity ≠ permanence. 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 23
3. Follow rules for any claims. 1995 0 Supreme(Raj) 185

Landmark cases like those cited provide binding clarity. For personalized guidance, consult legal experts. Stay informed on labor laws to navigate employment securely.

References:- 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1151, 1995 0 Supreme(Raj) 185, 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 966, 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 23, 2004 0 Supreme(Raj) 1789, 2024 0 Supreme(UK) 104, 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1912, 2022 0 Supreme(HP) 469, 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 2326, 2017 0 Supreme(All) 1564, 2020 0 Supreme(J&K) 290, 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 384